SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253594. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CCC, 1accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253594 (People of the Philippines v. CCC). — This is an appeal 2 from the Resolution 3 dated February 24, 2020, denying the Motion for Reconsideration and affirming the Decision 4 dated September 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42806. The CA Decision affirmed with modification the Decision 5 dated October 31, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 69, _______, Rizal, which also affirmed the Decision 6 dated May 21, 2018, of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Fourth Judicial Region, _______, Rizal (MTC). The CA Decision sustained the conviction of accused-appellant CCC (CCC) for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Antecedent Facts
An Information was filed, dated December 3, 2015, charging CCC with the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the RPC. 7 The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows:
That, in or about or sometime in the year 2008, at nighttime, in the Municipality of _______, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs and while the offended party was sleeping, unconscious or deprived of reason, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit lascivious conduct upon the person of AAA by touching her breasts, against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Assisted by counsel, CCC was arraigned on March 4, 2016 and pleaded "not guilty" 8 to the crime charged. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the victim AAA as its sole witness.
In her testimony, AAA stated that around some time in the year 2008, she, along with her child and father, visited her cousin, CCC's daughter, in the latter's home in _______, Rizal. As it was already getting late, they decided to spend the night in CCC's house instead of travelling all the way to their home in ______. AAA and her father slept in the sala of the house. 9 CAIHTE
According to AAA, because her child did not stop crying, she was offered by CCC to instead sleep in his room where it would be more comfortable for her child, and where AAA's cousin was also sleeping. She stated that she was given a mattress for her and her child to sleep on. 10
AAA testified that she was suddenly awakened when she felt a hand placed on top of her left breast. She stated that at first, she thought it was her child who, at that time, was still breast feeding. AAA claimed that upon opening her eyes, she saw that it was CCC's hand that was touching her left breast. She further claimed that when she faced CCC, he proceeded to touch her right breast, which allegedly startled her. 11
AAA stated that at that point, she was not able to ask for help from other people in the house. She, however, asked CCC to stop when she pleaded "Wag tito, Wag po." AAA testified that instead of stopping, CCC proceeded to pull her shorts down and only stopped when AAA's child began crying again. After the incident, AAA said that she hurriedly carried her child and transferred to the sala where her father was already asleep. She stated that she did not tell anyone about what happened during that night. 12
AAA further testified that when AAA's aunt, CCC's wife, returned home sometime in 2014, AAA's cousin confided to her that she had been repeatedly raped by CCC. According to AAA, this is what impelled her to go to the police and seek justice for what had allegedly happened to her that night in CCC's house.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented CCC who denied touching AAA's breasts and pulling her shorts down. He also stated that these allegations were a mere fabrication of the victim. CCC claimed that AAA could not be trusted, as she admitted before the MTC during a hearing held on January 18, 2018. 13
MTC Ruling
The MTC issued its Judgment 14 dated May 21, 2018, convicting CCC of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused [CCC] is GUILTY of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentenced to indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. He is ordered to pay [AAA] the amount of Twenty Thousand pesos (Php20,000.00) moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 15
The MTC ruled that between the positive testimony of AAA on one hand, and the bare denial of CCC on the other, the former must prevail. 16 Anent CCC's contention that AAA testified against her own credibility, the MTC noted that AAA was merely referring to her decision to not immediately tell her father about the incident right after it had occurred, and not to her trustworthiness as a complaining witness. 17 As regards the alleged belated filing of the case against CCC or, the MTC, citing jurisprudence, 18 ruled that the delay had in no way impaired the credibility of the witness. 19
Aggrieved with the decision, CCC appealed to the RTC.
RTC Ruling
The RTC, finding no reversible error, affirmed intoto the MTC Decision convicting CCC for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. As declared by the RTC, the lone testimony of AAA was clear, concise, and straight-forward, with no evidence presented by the defense to show ill-motive to testify falsely against CCC. 20
Aggrieved once again, CCC filed a petition for review 21 with the CA, dated February 7, 2019.
CA Ruling
The CA issued its Decision denying CCC's petition and affirming his conviction with modification:
DAHIL DITO, kami ay hindi sang-ayon sa apela. Ang desisyon ng hukumang naglitis ng apela sa Criminal Case No. 18-504 (15-166) na may petsang 31 October 2018 ay aming binibigyang bisa na may kaunting pagbabago tungkol sa pinakamataas na tagal ng pagkakulong at sa pagpataw ng tubo. Si [CCC] ay hinahatulan ng parusang pagkakulong ng anim (6) na buwan ng arresto mayor, bilang pinakamababa, hanggang dalawang (2) taon, apat (4) na buwan at isang (1) araw ng prision correccional, bilang pinakamataas. Ang iginawad na halagang P20,000.00 para sa biktima bilang bayad sa pinsala ay may tubo (interest) na 6% mula sa pesta ng finality ng desisyon hanggang sa mabayaran ang kabuuang halaga.
ITO AY IPINAG-UUTOS.22
The CA held that the evidence for the prosecution established all the elements of the crime charged, and that there was no compelling reason to disturb the findings of the lower courts which were at a better position to receive and examine the evidence presented before them. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by CCC in its Resolution 23 dated February 24, 2020.
Denied for the third time, CCC filed a notice of appeal 24 with the CA, dated March 13, 2020, which was given due course by the CA on August 28, 2020. 25
CCC filed a manifestation before this Court stating that he would be adopting the petition for review filed before the CA, together with the Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 10, 2019. 26 On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its own manifestation stating that it would be adopting its Brief for the Appellee filed with the CA. 27
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the CA committed any reversible error when it affirmed with modification CCC's conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.
Ruling of the Court
This Court finds no reversible error. CCC's conviction is affirmed, with modification as to the damages awarded.
In his desire to appeal the decision of the CA, CCC filed a notice of appeal with the CA on March 13, 2020, pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC. 28 At this juncture, this Court points out the improper mode of appeal used by CCC in seeking redress before this Court. DETACa
As a general rule, appeals of criminal cases shall be brought to this Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 29 In cases, however, where the CA imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, the judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by Notice of Appeal filed with the CA. 30 In reconciling these provisions, we ruled in Batistis v. People31 that the review on appeal of a decision in a criminal case wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, is by petition for review on certiorari. In this case, CCC availed of a wrong mode of appeal by filing a notice of appeal despite having been sentenced by the CA with a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice, the Court shall treat this appeal with liberality to allow it to decisively rule on the issue with finality.
CCC argues that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. 32 He also asserts that there was a violation of the rule on equipoise when the MTC gave greater weight to AAA's testimony despite offering his own version of the alleged incident which he believed to be of the same weight. 33 Finally, he contends that the belated filing of the case against him casts great doubt on the testimony of AAA. 34
We are not convinced.
At the outset, this Court rejects CCC's assertions which assail AAA's testimony as a credible witness. The MTC decision gave full weight and credence to AAA's testimony as she testified in a clear, concise, and straightforward manner. This was affirmed by both the RTC and the CA. Settled is the rule that when the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of substance and value had been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the results of the case. 35 There is nothing in this case that indicates the need to stray from this well established rule.
CCC is Guilty of Acts of
To sustain a conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) the lascivious act is done under any of the following circumstances: (i) by using force or intimidation; (ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (iii) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (c) the offended party is another person of either sex. 36
In affirming CCC's conviction, the CA found that the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently proven during AAA's testimony. AAA testified in a candid and straightforward manner how CCC touched her left breast with lascivious and lewd design, and while she was asleep and unconscious. 37 CCC even went further by touching AAA's other breast when she awakened, and even attempted to pull down her shorts despite her plea for CCC to desist. These events were narrated by AAA during her testimony which the MTC found to have been given in a clear and truthful manner, as pointed out by the CA. 38 In cases where an accused is charged with acts of lasciviousness, this Court has repeatedly held that the lone yet credible testimony of the offended party is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 39 Consequently, we find no error in the CA's finding that AAA's testimony is enough basis to sustain a conviction for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. In fact, the CA saw no need to delve into the issue raised by CCC regarding the alleged violation of the rule on equipoise as it had justifiably accorded great respect to the weight given by the MTC to AAA's testimony.
Anent the belated filing of the case against CCC, the CA correctly ruled that a delay in reporting of the crime and the filing of the case does not ipso facto show that the allegations contained therein are false. In citing the case of People v. Aycardo, 40 the CA held that delay in the reporting of sexual abuse does not imply that the charge was false and does not affect the credibility of the complaining witness. This is especially true if the accused has moral ascendancy over the victim, which in this case, was her uncle. 41
Ultimately, the CA ruled that the defense has advanced nothing that would merit a re-evaluation of the evidence submitted before the lower courts. The findings of the MTC, being in a greater position to evaluate the credibility of the complaining witness through her testimony, was accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect, in accordance with established jurisprudence. 42
Considering the foregoing, we find that the CA committed no reversible error which could have been a proper ground for a petition for review on certiorari. Thus, this Court affirms CCC's conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC.
Penalties
Acts of lasciviousness is penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, as amended, as follows:
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
xxx xxx xxx
The penalty prescribed by the RPC for lascivious conduct is prision correccional. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence shall be taken from the medium period thereof. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be taken within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor. Accordingly, we affirm the CA decision sentencing CCC to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum. The Court, however, deems it prudent to revise the award for damages in order to conform with recent jurisprudence. In People v. Tulagan, 43 the Court has declared that in cases of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, should now be fixed in the amount of P20,000.00 each, all of which shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42806 is hereby AFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATION as to the award of damages. Accused-appellant CCC is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum. Further, he is ORDERED to PAY private complainant civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of P20,000.00 each, and the costs of the suit.
In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until full payment. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. In line with the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); citing the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, Sec. 40; Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262, Rule XI, Section 63, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act," the real name of the victim will not be disclosed. The Court will instead use fictitious initials to represent her throughout the decision. The personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity will likewise be withheld. Likewise, the real name of the accused-appellant is replaced with fictitious initials by reason of his relationship to the victim.
2.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
3. CA rollo, pp. 179-180.
4.Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Louis P. Acosta concurring.
5. CA rollo, pp. 17-19. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez.
6.Id. at 21-23. Penned by Presiding Judge Katherine Jambaro-Altubar.
7.Id. at 21.
8.Rollo, p. 4.
9.Id. at 4-5.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 6.
14. CA rollo, pp. 21-23.
15.Id. at 23.
16.Id. at 22.
17.Id.
18.People v. Berondo, Jr., 601 Phil. 538, 545 (2009).
19. CA rollo, p. 22.
20.Id. at 19.
21.Id. at 3-15.
22.Rollo, p. 15.
23. CA rollo, pp. 179-180.
24.Rollo, pp. 17-19.
25.Id. at 20.
26.Id. at 24-26.
27.Id. at 27-32.
28.Id. at 17-19.
29. REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 122, Section 3 (e).
30.Id., Rule 124, Section 13 (c).
31. 623 Phil. 246, 254 (2009).
32.Rollo, p. 8.
33.Id. at 9.
34.Id.
35.People v. Malejana, 515 Phil. 584, 593 (2006), citing People v. Flores, 322 Phil. 24-430 (1996).
36.People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 357-358 (2013).
37.Rollo, p. 10.
38.Id.
39.People v. Divinagracia, Sr., 814 Phil. 730, 753 (2017), citing Ricalde v. People, 751 Phil 793, 807 (2015); Garingarao v. People, 669 Phil. 512, 522 (2011); People v. Tagaylo, 398 Phil. 1123, 1131-1132 (2000).
40. 810 Phil. 309, 319 (2017).
41.Rollo, p. 12.
42.Awas v. People, 811 Phil. 700, 707 (2017), citing People v. Apole, 697 Phil. 193-217 (2012).
43. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.